philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, October 06, 2018, 12:18 (2027 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: It was you who objected to my hypothesis because you said “love is not self-serving”. I took up the literal meaning of this to show that love does serve the self, by enabling humans/God to have “good feelings” about themselves. That does not in any way entail selfishness, which for me contains all the elements that prevent love! If you’re selfish, you couldn’t care less about others. This has now become a game of semantics, and you have shifted the focus from your God’s possible purposes to a definition of love.

TONY: No, I have not shifted the discussion. I stated that his primary purpose was love. Love by, nature and definition, puts others needs ahead of one's own.

Love of what? The trilobites, the dinosaurs, the flowers, the trees? Did he/does he put their needs ahead of his own? The word has a wide range of meanings, as you very well know. They also include romantic attraction (I fell in love with the girl who became my wife), caring deeply (I loved my grandfather), liking and enjoying (I love my work), loyalty (Trump says he loves his country). A few days ago you wrote: “I also see traces of sheer joy in creation...why shouldn’t he create things that are simply whimsical and fun?” Yes indeed. Enjoyment. The subject under discussion is God’s purpose in creating the universe and life, and the next two comments encapsulate (a) your agreement with my hypothesis, and (b) your attempt to shift the focus.

Dhw: You agreed that initially his purpose may have been to relieve his own isolation/boredom. If, in order to do so, he created the great spectacle of life which also gave him something to love and be loved by, that’s fine with me.

TONY: Only because the only thing to love 'in the beginning' would have been himself. Loving one's self is a good thing, and in fact I do not think it is possible to love another if you do not love yourself. But that to me is not as simple as boredom.

You can carry on speculating about the nature of love and self-love, but in the meantime you agree that (if he exists) he created the great spectacle of life because he was bored with his isolation (having only himself to love), and the spectacle gave him the opportunity to love and be loved, to enjoy and, as you said earlier, to feel good about himself and satisfied and proud. So why do you keep trying to dismiss my hypothesis when all your comments support it?

DAVID: Just consider: God may not need enjoyment. He may be filled with purpose and the joy of creation and nothing more. Just as likely as any other supposition about Him, since all we can do is analyze from his works, and He isn't giving any current expositions indirectly or in person. Opposite of interesting is uninteresting. He is obviously interested in what He creates.

dhw: Well, if he enjoys what he creates, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that he creates things because he WANTS to enjoy himself. And why do you think he wanted to create something interesting for himself to watch and enjoy? I suggest that it was because not creating anything and merely twiddling his immaterial thumbs for eternity would have been uninteresting – a synonym of which is boring. Please explain why this seems illogical to you.

DAVID: I didn't say He enjoys what He creates: I said "interested". I see intense purpose in His creations and I'm sure He has a sense of accomplishment, but not in our ways, because He knows what He can accomplish more surely than we do. He is a person like no other person.

If he’s “filled with the joy of creation” (your words), how could he possibly not enjoy creation? You see intense purpose, but whenever I ask you what that intense purpose might be, you come up with a list of humanizations (a relationship with us, interest and enjoyment, proving himself to us, sense of accomplishment), and then complain that my hypothesis (relieving the boredom of isolation) is humanizing. Yes, I can believe that if he exists he knows what he can accomplish, and if he can create universes and all forms of life and has been there for ever, and will never die, he is a person like no other person. That doesn’t mean that being bored with isolation is more humanizing than giving himself a sense of accomplishment etc. So once more, please explain why my hypothesis seems illogical to you.